RE: [asa] Does science negate the need for God?

Hi George,

The Planck story comes from a few different general science books I've read,
which I will try and get the specifics from them perhaps this weekend.

It may not have been his father, but Phillip von Jolly instead (per Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck)

The Munich physics professor Philipp
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_von_Jolly> von Jolly advised Planck
against going into physics, saying, "in this field, almost everything is
already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes." Planck
replied that he did not wish to discover new things, only to understand the
known fundamentals of the field, and began his studies in 1874 at the
University of Munich <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Munich> .
Under Jolly's supervision, Planck performed the only experiments of his
scientific career, studying the diffusion
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion> of hydrogen
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen> through heated platinum
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum> , but transferred to theoretical
physics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics> .

My confidence in Wiki isn't great, so I will see what more I can find. It
is amusing if true, though either way it makes a good story, especially
regarding the clean-up idea for light (Quantum mechanics) and gravity (GR).
J

Coope

From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 12:59 PM
To: George Cooper; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Does science negate the need for God?

This story about Planck may be true but he doesn't seem to mention it in his
relatively brief Scientific Autobiography. This has probably been published
in English but what I have is Max Planck, Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie
(Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig, 1948).

Shalom
George
 <http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm>
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----

From: "George Cooper" < <mailto:georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>

To: < <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> asa@calvin.edu>

Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 1:21 PM

Subject: RE: [asa] Does science negate the need for God?

> This reminds me of the claims at the end of the 19th century that science
> was almost completely known. IIRC, Planck's father(?) advised him to not
go
> into physics for this reason, though there were two minor clean-up issues:
> light and gravity. :)
>
> Coope
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of George Murphy
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 12:12 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] Does science negate the need for God?
>
> I agree - most scientists should be very hesitatnt to make any supposedly
> definitive statements about "the status of science in general." They may
> know something about other areas than their specialties but that's not the

> same as being able to speak about the current limits of those fields,
> directions in which they're likely to develop, whether or not radical
> changes in observational data or theory are likely to occur in the next 10

> years, usw.
>
> I really don't think it's possible to make any worthwhile quantitative
> estimate of how much we currently know in physics - in part precisely
> because the things that are presently unknown are, well, unknown. If
> further work in high energy physics and cosmology by 2020 has given strong

> support for string theory then we can look back & say, "Well, we
understood
> string theory pretty well in 2008 & it seems that that's the way the world

> is." But if in 2020 string theory has gone the way of phlogiston & takes
> its place in the science history museum & we find that some totally new
> explanation works, we'll have to say "Boy, we didn't really know anything
> about this in 2008." & which is it going to be? We don't know. & that's

> in the nature of the case, not from a general desire to be vague.
>
> Shalom
> George
> <http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm>
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dehler, Bernie" < <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Cc: "ASA" < <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 12:55 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Does science negate the need for God?
>
>
>> "...& even at that they should be limited to the scientific areas that
>> they know something about. "
>>
>> In that case, no one could say anything about the status of science in
>> general, since no one is a scientist in every scientific field.
>>
>> George- since you have a Ph.D. in physics, what is your estimate of how
>> much we know about everything in just the field of physics? Obviously
>> it's a guess, but I'm wondering if you'd go for 1%, 50%, 90%, or what...
>> My hunch is that you'd like to not give a number and keep it vague, but
>> I'd like to get some number from you if I can...
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: <mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> gmurphy10@neo.rr.com
[mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 9:46 AM
>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>> Cc: ASA
>> Subject: RE: [asa] Does science negate the need for God?
>>
>> I hope it will not seem elitist if I say that statements about how little

>> we know of science are considerably more significant coming from
>> scientists than from non-scientists. & even at that they should be
>> limited to the scientific areas that they know something about.
Otherwise
>
>> they have about the same value as my statements about Japanese
>> literature - d.h., not much.
>>
>> Shalom,
>> George
>>
>> ---- "Dehler wrote:
>>> Pastor Murray quoting Saunders:
>>> " we know very little about science in the grand scheme of things"
>>>
>>> I said that at first, too, then decided to drive it home a little deeper

>>> by putting a number on it, like less than 1%. Of course that is a guess

>>> based on nothing, but it is trying to point out the difference in
thought
>
>>> of how far we have yet to go. Just saying "we know little" doesn't mean

>>> much- it could be 50%, or whatever someone wants to translate it too.
>>> Just think if we discover a new dimension... how much more information
>>> that would bring to science... and that's just one example. We could
>>> also create new transformational technologies, as we did with microwave,

>>> transistors, electronics, computers, nuclear power, etc.
>>>
>>> ....Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>>> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:37 PM
>>> To: ASA
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] Does science negate the need for God?
>>>
>>> Hi Bernie,
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>> > What did you think about my saying we only know about 1% of science?
I
>>> > never heard anyone else say that.
>>>
>>> Nick Saunders of Cambridge mentions the point in passing in an online
>>> lecture "Divine Action in Modern Science" a recording of which can be
>>> found at the Faraday Institute;
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/5vbeam> http://tinyurl.com/5vbeam
>>>
>>> At about 2 minutes into the lecture he states;
>>>
>>> <cite>
>>> "...there are of course limits to what we can know about the nature of
>>> divine action as human beings. We have a very limited perspective on
>>> God's transcendence, we know very little about science in the grand
>>> scheme of things..."
>>> </cite>
>>>
>>> I don't recall if he makes much of the point subsequently in that
lecture
>
>>> OR if he develops the idea elsewhere - although the lecture mentions his

>>> book "Divine Action and Modern Science" ( <http://tinyurl.com/5m7eqj>
http://tinyurl.com/5m7eqj) and
>>> he might discuss the issue there.
>>>
>>> You might like to keep in mind that some YECs often argue that the
>>> acceptance of Darwinism is grounded in ignorance;
>>>
>>> <cite: <http://tinyurl.com/6zhw3h> http://tinyurl.com/6zhw3h>
>>> Advances in the realm of science also reveal the true face of outdated
>>> theories such as Darwinism, long regarded as valid because of the
>>> scientific ignorance that once prevailed.
>>> </cite>
>>>
>>> Need I add that I am not advocating such a position, merely pointing out

>>> that some YECs argue thus? I mention it only so as you can avoid the
>>> potential danger of guilt by association.
>>>
>>> Blessings,
>>> Murray
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu>
majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu>
majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu>
majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu>
majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu>
majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 31 16:07:50 2008